The Peterson Murder Trial
- Thread starter ABSTRUSE
- Start date
Lauren Hynde
Hitched
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,061
Uh?
ABSTRUSE
Cirque du Freak
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Posts
- 50,094
MODESTO, Calif. — Scott Peterson is supposed to be cradling his infant in the baby blue nursery he renovated for the boy. Instead, he sits in a drab jail cell charged with murdering his pregnant wife and their unborn son.
The happy life Peterson, a handsome 30-year-old fertilizer salesman, seemed destined to have will never come. His vivacious wife is dead, the child he appeared eager to raise is gone, and Peterson's future may include death row.
Prosecutors say Peterson killed his college sweetheart wife, Laci, a 27-year-old substitute teacher who was about a month away from delivering their first child, dumped her body in the ocean and then told her family and police detectives that she had simply vanished from their home. The district attorney has said he intends to seek the death penalty.
Laci Peterson
Peterson insists he is innocent and has no idea what became of his wife. His supporters maintain that the police investigators decided early on that he was the culprit and refused to examine other leads in the case.
Media outlets across the country were drawn to the story of the pregnant woman with the bright smile who vanished on Christmas Eve. Even during the war in Iraq, the search for her and the ultimate arrest of Scott Peterson led the news.
From the start, public suspicion fell on her husband.
Scott Peterson told detectives that he had last seen his wife on Dec. 24 at 9:30 a.m. when he left their home in the La Loma neighborhood of Modesto for a solo fishing trip in Berkeley, about an hour and a half drive away.
Laci, he said, had plans to go grocery shopping and then walk their golden retriever in nearby East La Loma Park. But when he returned home that night, she was gone. Her cellphone and purse were still in the house, and a neighbor said she had spotted the couple's dog running loose at 10 a.m. and locked him in the Peterson's gated backyard.
Police searched the park, but saw no sign of Laci Peterson. Meanwhile, relatives and friends posted fliers and organized search parties. Volunteers joined with officers in helicopters, on horseback and in boats. Thousands of concerned citizens combed the city of Modesto and then fanned out across central and northern California, looking in drainage ditches, rivers and farms for any sign of the missing woman. Within days, the family had raised a $500,000 reward, but there was still no sign of Laci.
Police search and rescue team prepares to dive in waters off Berkeley, Calif., searching for Laci Peterson.
"Christmas is over for us," Laci's older brother, Brent, said after three-days of fruitless searching. "We all feel empty and want our sister returned."
Police were convinced early on that Laci Peterson had met with foul play. A bloodhound's handler told authorities that his dogs were indicating she left her home in a vehicle, not on foot.
And Laci's mother, Sharon Rocha, ruled out any voluntary departure. She had talked to her daughter by phone the evening of Dec. 23 and said Laci seemed fine. She would never just walk away from her life, she assured officers. She was too excited about the baby, which she and Scott had already named Conner, and too happy in her marriage.
Scott Peterson rarely spoke publicly about his wife's disappearance. He was too upset, Laci's brother explained at the time. In many early television interviews, Scott Peterson's parents stood with Rocha, her husband and other children. Together, they dismissed any suggestion that Scott was involved.
"There's no possibility that he would be involved," said Peterson's mother, Jacqueline. "They were like honeymooners even after being married five years. They doted on each other. We all wanted to be like them."
But even if relatives did not consider Peterson a suspect, the police had not eliminated him. Just two days after Laci vanished, crime scene investigators searched the couple's home. The next day, they searched the warehouse Scott Peterson used for his business and took two computers from the family home. They also seized the SUV Laci drove and Peterson's pickup truck.
Scott Peterson's pickup truck and boat trailer were confiscated by police.
On Jan. 2, they asked for the public's help to verify Peterson's alibi. He had produced receipts related to his trip, but police asked anyone who had seen him fishing or at the marina to contact them.
About three weeks into the investigation, police shared suspicions with Laci's mother, siblings and stepfather that fractured the relationship with Scott Peterson and his family. Peterson, the detectives told the Rochas, had been having an affair with another woman and had taken a $250,000 life insurance policy out on his wife.
Peterson gave a rare interview to call the allegations "a pack of lies," but a massage therapist from Fresno named Amber Frey stepped forward and identified herself as the other woman. She told reporters that Peterson presented himself as single when they met the previous November.
"When I discovered he was involved in the Laci Peterson disappearance case, I immediately contacted the Modesto Police Department," said Frey, a 28-year-old single mother of a 2-year-old.
In the wake of Frey's disclosure, there were more damaging reports. The Modesto Bee noted that Scott Peterson had laughed and smiled during a vigil for Laci. He had traded in Laci's SUV to pay for a truck to replace the one seized by police, and there were reports he was contacting real estate agents about selling the house.
One neighbor reportedly told police she had seen Peterson loading something heavy into his truck around the time Laci vanished. Another said she found it strange that the Petersons' drapes remained closed Christmas Eve morning.
Days later, Peterson broke his virtual silence with several television interviews acknowledging the affair, but denying it had anything to do with his wife's disappearance. He said the couple had a "glorious" marriage, and his wife knew about Frey and had made her peace with the relationship.
"It wasn't anything that would break us apart," he told Diane Sawyer on ABC.
He also offered explanations for some of the reports implicating him. He said he and Laci bought life insurance policies on each other two years before she went missing. He claimed that Laci left the drapes pulled Christmas Eve morning because the house was cold, and said the items a neighbor saw him loading into the back of his truck might have been umbrellas he used for work.
Laci's delivery date, Feb. 10, came and went without any news of her whereabouts. About a month later, authorities said the missing person investigation had become a homicide case.
On April 13, the body of a full-term baby washed up on the shore of San Francisco Bay near Richmond. The next day, a dog walker found the badly decomposed body of a woman. The area where both bodies were found was about three miles from the marina where Peterson said he was fishing.
The coroner could not determine the cause of death, but DNA tests proved the bodies were Laci Peterson and her son. The child, experts said, could have been pushed from his mother's body by gases created in the decomposition process.
Before the DNA test results were even announced, police arrested Scott Peterson at a golf course near his parents' home in San Diego County.
Law enforcement officials noted that Peterson had lightened his brown hair to a reddish-blond, grown a goatee and was carrying $10,000 in cash, the maximum amount of cash that can be brought across the nearby Mexican border without notifying officials.
He pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder, one for his wife and one for his son. Under California law, a fetus over the age of seven weeks can be considered a murder victim . The double-murder charge means Peterson could face the death penalty if convicted.
Other than saying that the murder took place on Dec. 23 or 24, prosecutors in the case are keeping a tight lid on their case. During the investigation, police took biological samples from Scott Peterson, sent materials to the state crime lab for testing, and seized 90 bags of evidence from his home alone, but precisely what police were looking for is being kept under seal. Still, California Attorney General bill Lockyer called the case a "slam dunk."
Peterson's lawyers have said little about their still nascent case, but his parents have suggested the police department was blind to other suspects or theories.
"They worked strictly on a theory that was dreamt up by this lead detective within the first eight hours, and they've pursued it backward from there and they have neglected so many good leads," Peterson's father, Lee, told Time.
His parents say that among the 9,000 tips police fielded in the case were sightings of Laci Peterson long after Dec. 23.
The happy life Peterson, a handsome 30-year-old fertilizer salesman, seemed destined to have will never come. His vivacious wife is dead, the child he appeared eager to raise is gone, and Peterson's future may include death row.
Prosecutors say Peterson killed his college sweetheart wife, Laci, a 27-year-old substitute teacher who was about a month away from delivering their first child, dumped her body in the ocean and then told her family and police detectives that she had simply vanished from their home. The district attorney has said he intends to seek the death penalty.
Laci Peterson
Peterson insists he is innocent and has no idea what became of his wife. His supporters maintain that the police investigators decided early on that he was the culprit and refused to examine other leads in the case.
Media outlets across the country were drawn to the story of the pregnant woman with the bright smile who vanished on Christmas Eve. Even during the war in Iraq, the search for her and the ultimate arrest of Scott Peterson led the news.
From the start, public suspicion fell on her husband.
Scott Peterson told detectives that he had last seen his wife on Dec. 24 at 9:30 a.m. when he left their home in the La Loma neighborhood of Modesto for a solo fishing trip in Berkeley, about an hour and a half drive away.
Laci, he said, had plans to go grocery shopping and then walk their golden retriever in nearby East La Loma Park. But when he returned home that night, she was gone. Her cellphone and purse were still in the house, and a neighbor said she had spotted the couple's dog running loose at 10 a.m. and locked him in the Peterson's gated backyard.
Police searched the park, but saw no sign of Laci Peterson. Meanwhile, relatives and friends posted fliers and organized search parties. Volunteers joined with officers in helicopters, on horseback and in boats. Thousands of concerned citizens combed the city of Modesto and then fanned out across central and northern California, looking in drainage ditches, rivers and farms for any sign of the missing woman. Within days, the family had raised a $500,000 reward, but there was still no sign of Laci.
Police search and rescue team prepares to dive in waters off Berkeley, Calif., searching for Laci Peterson.
"Christmas is over for us," Laci's older brother, Brent, said after three-days of fruitless searching. "We all feel empty and want our sister returned."
Police were convinced early on that Laci Peterson had met with foul play. A bloodhound's handler told authorities that his dogs were indicating she left her home in a vehicle, not on foot.
And Laci's mother, Sharon Rocha, ruled out any voluntary departure. She had talked to her daughter by phone the evening of Dec. 23 and said Laci seemed fine. She would never just walk away from her life, she assured officers. She was too excited about the baby, which she and Scott had already named Conner, and too happy in her marriage.
Scott Peterson rarely spoke publicly about his wife's disappearance. He was too upset, Laci's brother explained at the time. In many early television interviews, Scott Peterson's parents stood with Rocha, her husband and other children. Together, they dismissed any suggestion that Scott was involved.
"There's no possibility that he would be involved," said Peterson's mother, Jacqueline. "They were like honeymooners even after being married five years. They doted on each other. We all wanted to be like them."
But even if relatives did not consider Peterson a suspect, the police had not eliminated him. Just two days after Laci vanished, crime scene investigators searched the couple's home. The next day, they searched the warehouse Scott Peterson used for his business and took two computers from the family home. They also seized the SUV Laci drove and Peterson's pickup truck.
Scott Peterson's pickup truck and boat trailer were confiscated by police.
On Jan. 2, they asked for the public's help to verify Peterson's alibi. He had produced receipts related to his trip, but police asked anyone who had seen him fishing or at the marina to contact them.
About three weeks into the investigation, police shared suspicions with Laci's mother, siblings and stepfather that fractured the relationship with Scott Peterson and his family. Peterson, the detectives told the Rochas, had been having an affair with another woman and had taken a $250,000 life insurance policy out on his wife.
Peterson gave a rare interview to call the allegations "a pack of lies," but a massage therapist from Fresno named Amber Frey stepped forward and identified herself as the other woman. She told reporters that Peterson presented himself as single when they met the previous November.
"When I discovered he was involved in the Laci Peterson disappearance case, I immediately contacted the Modesto Police Department," said Frey, a 28-year-old single mother of a 2-year-old.
In the wake of Frey's disclosure, there were more damaging reports. The Modesto Bee noted that Scott Peterson had laughed and smiled during a vigil for Laci. He had traded in Laci's SUV to pay for a truck to replace the one seized by police, and there were reports he was contacting real estate agents about selling the house.
One neighbor reportedly told police she had seen Peterson loading something heavy into his truck around the time Laci vanished. Another said she found it strange that the Petersons' drapes remained closed Christmas Eve morning.
Days later, Peterson broke his virtual silence with several television interviews acknowledging the affair, but denying it had anything to do with his wife's disappearance. He said the couple had a "glorious" marriage, and his wife knew about Frey and had made her peace with the relationship.
"It wasn't anything that would break us apart," he told Diane Sawyer on ABC.
He also offered explanations for some of the reports implicating him. He said he and Laci bought life insurance policies on each other two years before she went missing. He claimed that Laci left the drapes pulled Christmas Eve morning because the house was cold, and said the items a neighbor saw him loading into the back of his truck might have been umbrellas he used for work.
Laci's delivery date, Feb. 10, came and went without any news of her whereabouts. About a month later, authorities said the missing person investigation had become a homicide case.
On April 13, the body of a full-term baby washed up on the shore of San Francisco Bay near Richmond. The next day, a dog walker found the badly decomposed body of a woman. The area where both bodies were found was about three miles from the marina where Peterson said he was fishing.
The coroner could not determine the cause of death, but DNA tests proved the bodies were Laci Peterson and her son. The child, experts said, could have been pushed from his mother's body by gases created in the decomposition process.
Before the DNA test results were even announced, police arrested Scott Peterson at a golf course near his parents' home in San Diego County.
Law enforcement officials noted that Peterson had lightened his brown hair to a reddish-blond, grown a goatee and was carrying $10,000 in cash, the maximum amount of cash that can be brought across the nearby Mexican border without notifying officials.
He pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder, one for his wife and one for his son. Under California law, a fetus over the age of seven weeks can be considered a murder victim . The double-murder charge means Peterson could face the death penalty if convicted.
Other than saying that the murder took place on Dec. 23 or 24, prosecutors in the case are keeping a tight lid on their case. During the investigation, police took biological samples from Scott Peterson, sent materials to the state crime lab for testing, and seized 90 bags of evidence from his home alone, but precisely what police were looking for is being kept under seal. Still, California Attorney General bill Lockyer called the case a "slam dunk."
Peterson's lawyers have said little about their still nascent case, but his parents have suggested the police department was blind to other suspects or theories.
"They worked strictly on a theory that was dreamt up by this lead detective within the first eight hours, and they've pursued it backward from there and they have neglected so many good leads," Peterson's father, Lee, told Time.
His parents say that among the 9,000 tips police fielded in the case were sightings of Laci Peterson long after Dec. 23.
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
Oh my God.
ABSTRUSE
Cirque du Freak
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Posts
- 50,094
Pure said:
that's just it, I suspect him too, it seems the most logical choice, but as you say, the evidence doesn't support much.
You could say he had a motive, but with out burden of proof, it seems like he may likely get away with murder.
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
He's innocent.
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
My uncle is a judge, he was a great lawyer in his time. Its something I picked up from him.
He hasn't been found guilty of a crime. He is innocent until then. In such a situation as the one presented, where the evidence and motives and all that is really inconclusive... I have to remind myself that, right now, for the sake of fairness, that man is innocent.
LadyJeanne
deluded
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2004
- Posts
- 5,885
The trial is all over the California news and papers...less coverage than the OJ trial, but just as much emotion and vitriol.
Most people think he's a lying, cheating bastard who did not mourn the death of his wife and unborn child. No one can fathom why he'd go fishing on Christmas Eve with a pregnant wife home alone. His actions since her death don't jibe with those of a grieving husband whose wife has been murdered and who is on trial for the murders. Hence, the prevailing opinion is that he is likely the murderer.
The prosecution, however, has not put a solid case together based on anything but circumstantial evidence, so they are not likely to prove anything. Peterson will likely go free.
I tend to believe he did it, but I come from an immigrant family that deeply mourns the death of a family member for decades, especially a young mother-to-be, so that likely colors my opinion.
Most people think he's a lying, cheating bastard who did not mourn the death of his wife and unborn child. No one can fathom why he'd go fishing on Christmas Eve with a pregnant wife home alone. His actions since her death don't jibe with those of a grieving husband whose wife has been murdered and who is on trial for the murders. Hence, the prevailing opinion is that he is likely the murderer.
The prosecution, however, has not put a solid case together based on anything but circumstantial evidence, so they are not likely to prove anything. Peterson will likely go free.
I tend to believe he did it, but I come from an immigrant family that deeply mourns the death of a family member for decades, especially a young mother-to-be, so that likely colors my opinion.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Joe, you're right.
Unfortunately, Petersen is on trial at exactly the time when I'm desperate for some news that isn't world-shaking. I actually wish the trial were televised so I could become obsessed with it.
I read someplace that murder by a husband or live-in boyfriend is one of the leading causes of death for women in the U.S.
That's scary. I wonder if it's also true in any other culture, or if it's just one of the unique charms of the USA.
Unfortunately, Petersen is on trial at exactly the time when I'm desperate for some news that isn't world-shaking. I actually wish the trial were televised so I could become obsessed with it.
I read someplace that murder by a husband or live-in boyfriend is one of the leading causes of death for women in the U.S.
That's scary. I wonder if it's also true in any other culture, or if it's just one of the unique charms of the USA.
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
I testified at a murder trial, once. A friend of mine shot a guy in the face, smooth as day. I was getting a lot of flack about it, people saying "he's a murderer" and "he should go to jail" and all that. It was self-defense, but to help me get through the propoganda and the opinion, the court appointed a counselor to explain how the law worked to me (I was young).
I had it repeated to me for weeks that, in essence, the man is innocent. Strictly innocent. Innocent without predicate, without "ands" or "buts".
So, whenever I hear about a crime... OJ, Clinton's sex scandal, capturing a terrorist, people who throw babies out of speeding cars, thieves, bad accountants... I remind myself that they /are/ innocent people. Later, they may be "found" guilty.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Pure said:
The distance from their home to the site where the bodies washed up, and that it happens to be the same place where he drove 68 miles for his fishing trip, is awfully suspicious. There's lots of other circumstantial evidence. But you're right that he's probably going to go free. A juror who was released from duty after sitting through part of the trial said that the prosecution was plodding and presented evidence and arguments out of sequence, and had made the entire business so complicated that he thought there would be an acquittal. It always comes down to the quality of the attorney a person can afford, doesn't it? Or in some cases, the quality of the attorneys who are willing to take the case for the publicity.
As for concrete evidence, there's some actual concrete that Scott can't account for. I only caught a snippet of talk on Court TV. Dan Rather is busy at the moment and hasn't done a story on Sixty Minutes.
The one thing I don't buy is that his public attitude during the investigation is somehow an implication that he wasn't grieving. Grief expresses itself in unfamiliar ways sometimes. I've seen a mother laugh about having a bad hair day, an hour after her child's funeral. She was grieving to the point of collapse. But nobody can cry nonstop.
O.J. grieved with tears, the way we're supposed to. Crazy bastard.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Joe, I've been on five juries including one murder trial. The jury experiences were invariably disillusioning, but when a man's life was at stake it was just awful. We convicted him, but it was a wrenching decision despite all the evidence. "Reasonable doubt" can mean almost anything, when you're about to send some 19-year-old to prison or worse.
If I'm ever accused of a crime, I'm going to ask for a judge and no jury, and hope by the luck of the draw that I get a fair one. I learned that a jury of your peers is typicallly composed of the following: semi-literate people who don't understand some of the evidence and can't follow the logic of the evidence they do understand; earnest people who think they have a duty to ignore the judge's instructions and raise arguments in the jury room that weren't raised in court; people who sleep through parts of the trial and rely on other jurers to tell them what happened; the guy who's there to play God ("Nobody has the right to judge anyone else"); and lots of bored people who will agree to anything at all - including a murder conviction - if it means they can go home. In the mix there are always a few with strong personalities, and they are the ones who make the decision. The others are just along for the ride. It's not pretty.
I'd like to see a system of professional jurors, maybe made of of retired judges and other people who could pass at least a basic IQ test. It may not be what the framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind, but maybe when they called for a jury of their peers they meant their peers. People with intelligence and a strong sense of responsibility.
Btw, OJ did it and so did Petersen. Can we go home now?
If I'm ever accused of a crime, I'm going to ask for a judge and no jury, and hope by the luck of the draw that I get a fair one. I learned that a jury of your peers is typicallly composed of the following: semi-literate people who don't understand some of the evidence and can't follow the logic of the evidence they do understand; earnest people who think they have a duty to ignore the judge's instructions and raise arguments in the jury room that weren't raised in court; people who sleep through parts of the trial and rely on other jurers to tell them what happened; the guy who's there to play God ("Nobody has the right to judge anyone else"); and lots of bored people who will agree to anything at all - including a murder conviction - if it means they can go home. In the mix there are always a few with strong personalities, and they are the ones who make the decision. The others are just along for the ride. It's not pretty.
I'd like to see a system of professional jurors, maybe made of of retired judges and other people who could pass at least a basic IQ test. It may not be what the framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind, but maybe when they called for a jury of their peers they meant their peers. People with intelligence and a strong sense of responsibility.
Btw, OJ did it and so did Petersen. Can we go home now?
Joe Wordsworth said:
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
Originally posted by shereads
Joe, I've been on five juries including one murder trial. The jury experiences were invariably disillusioning, but when a man's life was at stake it was just awful. We convicted him, but it was a wrenching decision despite all the evidence. "Reasonable doubt" can mean almost anything, when you're about to send some 19-year-old to prison or worse.
If I'm ever accused of a crime, I'm going to ask for a judge and no jury, and hope by the luck of the draw that I get a fair one. I learned that a jury of your peers is typicallly composed of the following: semi-literate people who don't understand some of the evidence and can't follow the logic of the evidence they do understand; earnest people who think they have a duty to ignore the judge's instructions and raise arguments in the jury room that weren't raised in court; people who sleep through parts of the trial and rely on other jurers to tell them what happened; the guy who's there to play God ("Nobody has the right to judge anyone else"); and lots of bored people who will agree to anything at all - including a murder conviction - if it means they can go home. In the mix there are always a few with strong personalities, and they are the ones who make the decision. The others are just along for the ride. It's not pretty.
I'd like to see a system of professional jurors, maybe made of of retired judges and other people who could pass at least a basic IQ test. It may not be what the framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind, but maybe when they called for a jury of their peers they meant their peers. People with intelligence and a strong sense of responsibility.
Btw, OJ did it and so did Petersen. Can we go home now?
I'm a bit bound by my ethics to abide by a jury trial... even one composed of such people.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Joe Wordsworth said:
So am I, until I'm accused of something I didn't do. Then I want Judge Melian from The People's Court. She goes to my gym and she seems pretty smart for a TV judge.
On the other hand, if I'm guilty I think I want a jury. At least I'll have a chance to get away with it.
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
I've enjoyed and taken full advantage of my time as an American citizen. I've fully accepted the benifits and must accept the responsibilities. I can't bring myself to fault the system, simply because the system finds me at fault.
poohlive
Silly Ole Bear
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2000
- Posts
- 11,389
I think there's a big difference of "is he guilty" and "will he be found guilty."
Is he guilty? I tend to go more towards the Joe way of thinking. He's innocent until something can show me he's not.
He went fishing Christmas eve? My dad took us fishing the day after christmas, with my mom pregnant back at home That doesn't make me a murderer, does it?
Some profound statements from his ex girlfriend... please, shocking, but not hurtful.
He didn't mourn? Well, we should lock up every American male who doesn't mourn when family members are tragically killed. Come on, this is the generation of males that grew up knowing it was wrong to cry, wrong to show emotion. That's inside stuff. I've been to several funerals, close family members. Never cried in public. My mother said that I was unemotional, cause I didn't shed a tear for my father's death.
Doesn't mean I killed him.
Joe, O.J. was found guilty in Civil court... how does that work? He still considered innocent in your book? Maybe, sort of innocent? Innocent, but has to pay damages anyway?
Is he guilty? I tend to go more towards the Joe way of thinking. He's innocent until something can show me he's not.
He went fishing Christmas eve? My dad took us fishing the day after christmas, with my mom pregnant back at home That doesn't make me a murderer, does it?
Some profound statements from his ex girlfriend... please, shocking, but not hurtful.
He didn't mourn? Well, we should lock up every American male who doesn't mourn when family members are tragically killed. Come on, this is the generation of males that grew up knowing it was wrong to cry, wrong to show emotion. That's inside stuff. I've been to several funerals, close family members. Never cried in public. My mother said that I was unemotional, cause I didn't shed a tear for my father's death.
Doesn't mean I killed him.
Joe, O.J. was found guilty in Civil court... how does that work? He still considered innocent in your book? Maybe, sort of innocent? Innocent, but has to pay damages anyway?
Joe Wordsworth
Logician
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Posts
- 4,085
I'd have to look into/think about that one.
I think it technically makes him (OJ) Innocent but responsible.
Crazy damned system...but I understand why it works the way it does, haven't found a better way yet. The same laws my sister-in-law complains about being there to protect "criminals" also protect me. [Not that I'm a criminal, just..oh hell...someone pass a shovel over this way?]
I have heard rumors that there are semi-professional juries in some Scandanavian country. Can anyone straighten me out on that one?
G
Crazy damned system...but I understand why it works the way it does, haven't found a better way yet. The same laws my sister-in-law complains about being there to protect "criminals" also protect me. [Not that I'm a criminal, just..oh hell...someone pass a shovel over this way?]
I have heard rumors that there are semi-professional juries in some Scandanavian country. Can anyone straighten me out on that one?
G
poohlive
Silly Ole Bear
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2000
- Posts
- 11,389
I know, Joe, sometimes it's not as easy as you think. I don't know about O.J. For the longes time, during his first trial, I thought he was guilty, but now... maybe I was just scooped up in everything to look at the facts straight. I don't know.
Maybe, if I see him one day, I'll ask him, honestly.
Pass you a shovel? You're not really going to bury him, are you? Oh, good lord! Amateurs! At least dump it in a river. It washes away all the prints. Or, cut it up first, harder to identify. I mean, come on, and I working with novices here?
Dahmer had a barrel full of acid, now that's professional. To this day, they don't know how many he killed.
I tell you, killers these days, they aren't even trying anymore. I remember, in my day, you had to walk a mile in the snow, barefoot to kill someone, uphill, both ways...
And we liked it!!!
Maybe, if I see him one day, I'll ask him, honestly.
Pass you a shovel? You're not really going to bury him, are you? Oh, good lord! Amateurs! At least dump it in a river. It washes away all the prints. Or, cut it up first, harder to identify. I mean, come on, and I working with novices here?
Dahmer had a barrel full of acid, now that's professional. To this day, they don't know how many he killed.
I tell you, killers these days, they aren't even trying anymore. I remember, in my day, you had to walk a mile in the snow, barefoot to kill someone, uphill, both ways...
And we liked it!!!
ABSTRUSE
Cirque du Freak
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Posts
- 50,094
shereads said:
Judge M is my hero, I worship her...lol.
I would also want a jury if convicted of a crime, they are my peers.
As far as Peterson goes, there is so much circumstantial evidence as well as no explaination for some of his behaviour. One would like to think a man who's about to expect his first child would not have the capability to commit such an act. To most of us, leaving a pregnant wife home to go fishing on Christmas Eve, especially one that most people would want to spend to gether being it was the one just before their first child is born, is a bit odd. She had just inherited jewelry from her grandmother worth quite a bit of money, which was found at home, with the exception of a pair of diamond earrings, plus other money was hers also. (Motive?)
He had a history of infidelity, He washed his clothes and his truck, all these little inconsistencies.
He had two theories on what happened to her, one being she was murdered for the baby, the other was robbery.
But as Joe states, he is not guilty until it is proven to be so in a court of law. We can look at what 'evidence' we see, but here lies reasonable doubt. Where is the missing key that is concrete and binds the story?
I could easily have sentenced Ted Bundy or Jeffery Dahmer to death, but in all honesty, based on what is presented,(and even thought I feel he did do it) could I sentence this man to a life in prison or face death? I'm not so sure.
Lori Hackings husband was clearly nuts,the evidence is there, I'm not sure what the motive was, but we know he did it.
Sick, sad world folks.
Similar threads
